Friday, March 31, 2017

Dissonance in Philippine foreign policy as president backs China while military nurtures US tiesPUBLISHED : Sunday, 26 March, 2017, 6:47pm

21 Mar 2017

Since his ascent to power, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has overseen a remarkable shift in his country’s foreign policy, particularly towards China. The tough-talking Filipino leader, who is as notorious abroad as he is popular at home, has described China as a friendly and generous nation, a partner for national development and a potential military ally for the Philippines.

During his high-profile state visit to China last year, when he snubbed both Washington and Tokyo in favour of Beijing, Duterte declared his “separation” from the United States, the Philippines’ sole treaty ally, and offered to realign his country with China’s “ideological flow”.

Not short of hyperbole, he sought a “new world order” where the Philippines is in alliance with China and Russia “against the world”. Along the way, Duterte even claimed Chinese ancestry to impress his hosts, who rolled out the red carpet and lavished their guest with utmost respect and a generous package of economic aid.

Duterte’s friendly comments towards China went hand in hand with his blitzkrieg of insults and threats against top US officials, including then President Barack Obama.

This stands in clear contrast to Duterte’s predecessor, Benigno Aquino, who went so far as likening China to Nazi Germany on multiple occasions, while fortifying defence ties with the US. Under the Aquino administration, communication channels with China effectively collapsed, while the Philippines became the first country to take China to international court over territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

Duterte’s over-the-top rhetoric, however, hasn’t fully translated into actual policy. This has been more than evident in how key officials, including Defence Minister Delfin Lorenzana, have been constantly contradicting their principal by striking a more orthodox tone and tirelessly preserving the foundations of the Philippine-US defence alliance.

While Duterte enthusiastically plays up Chinese economic assistance, his deputies in the security establishment often underscore the perceived threats from Chinese maritime assertiveness in the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean, particularly near the Benham Rise. Given the historically profound influence of the (American-aligned) Philippine military, it would be foolhardy to ignore the opinion and sentiments of senior defence officials.

In effect, the Philippines currently has three different foreign policies simultaneously: first, Duterte’s own pronouncements, which tend to be more reflective of his personal preferences and emotions; secondly, the defence officials’ more conventional world view, where China is seen primarily as a strategic threat; and finally, the foreign affairs department and press officials, who, through an excruciating exercise in semantics, constantly try to synthesise blatantly contradictory statements between Duterte and his generals.

[Anti-China protesters demonstrate in front of the Chinese consulate in Manila on Friday, to protest China's alleged incursion within Benham Rise, an underwater landmass 250 kilometres off the east coast of the main island of Luzon. Photo: AFP]

The festering dissonance in Philippine foreign policy has been more than evident in recent weeks, as Duterte and the security establishment offered very divergent positions vis-à-vis reports of growing Chinese assertiveness on the country’s western and eastern shores.

Earlier this month, defence officials accused China of engaging in suspicious activities within the Benham Rise, part of the Philippines’ continental shelf in the Pacific Ocean. In particular, Defence Secretary Lorenzana suggested that Chinese vessels could have been engaged in illegal oceanographic research within areas that fall under the Philippines’ exclusive jurisdiction.It is far from clear whether what we are witnessing is part of an elaborate “good cop, bad cop” double game by the Duterte administration

His comments, which were flatly refuted by Chinese officials, provoked a torrent of media coverage and rekindled deep public mistrust towards Beijing. They came amid visits by high-level Chinese officials to the Philippines, who offered large investment deals to the Southeast Asian nation.

Duterte quickly tried to downplay the situation by claiming that he gave China the permission to conduct marine scientific research in the area. In response, both defence and foreign affairs secretaries rebuffed the president’s statement by claiming no knowledge of such a purported arrangement, which, per the Philippine constitution, requires a formal agreement under supervision of proper government agencies.

China dismisses Philippine concerns over marine activities

Just as the dust over the Benham Rise issue began to settle, Filipino defence officials raised concerns over the possibility of Chinese construction activities on the disputed Scarborough Shoal. Philippine defence officials were quick to describe it as an “unacceptable” scenario, emphasising the indispensability of the US to its prevention.

Influential figures such as Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio immediately called for doubling down on defence ties with America and a vigorous diplomatic response to China.

[A protester displays a caricature of President Rodrigo Duterte in front of the Chinese Consulate in Manila on Friday. Photo: AP]

Duterte, however, was quick to dismiss any suggestion of pushback, arguing the Philippines “cannot stop China from doing its thing,” while, in a clear contradiction of his own defence minister, he stated that, “Americans were not able to stop them [anyway].”

At this point, it is far from clear whether what we are witnessing is part of an elaborate “good cop, bad cop” double game by the Duterte administration. A more plausible hypothesis, however, is that the Philippine foreign policy is the product of constant bargaining and contestation between an unorthodox yet popular president and a very orthodox and powerful defence establishment.

The upshot is a classic case of policy dissonance, leaving Filipino diplomats and press officials the impossible task of presenting a coherent and sensible picture of Philippine foreign policy to a bewildered domestic and international audience. Welcome to the age of Duterte.This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as:Duterte’s duel with top officials leads to incoherent foreign policy

'Incident could be blamed on vulnerable people'.

Comment by Alex Jones: “The real false flag is
opening Europe up to Islamic invaders and then using that crisis to
revoke the liberties and freedoms of the people in those nations who are
fighting for their very survival. The real false flag is allowing
thousands of unvetted Islamist “refugees” into the United States with
the same aim – to merge the left with Islamofascism.”
Leftist
professor Noam Chomsky has charged that it is possible President Trump
will stage a terrorist attack in order to offset initial policy problems
and quell opposition.
Speaking with left-wing website AlterNet,
Chomsky suggested that Trump could organise a false-flag incident to
rally supporters who are discovering that his “promises are built on
sand”.

“We
shouldn’t put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of
staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country
instantly.” Chomsky stated.
“In order to maintain his popularity,
the Trump administration will have to try to find some means of rallying
the support and changing the discourse from the policies that they are
carrying out, which are basically a wrecking ball, to something else.”
Chomsky said.
The professor also hinted that such a staged attack could be blamed on “vulnerable people” in order to bolster Trump policies.
“Maybe
scapegoating, saying, ‘Well, I’m sorry, I can’t bring your jobs back
because these bad people are preventing it.’ And the typical
scapegoating goes to vulnerable people, immigrants, terrorists, Muslims
and elitists, whoever it may be.” Chomsky added.
It isn’t clear why Chomsky believes terrorists should be viewed as “vulnerable”.
Chomsky
said that Trump’s “rhetoric is about helping the working man and so on,
but the [policy] proposals are savage and damaging”.
The liberal
intellectual has previously spoken about the possibility of the
September 11th attacks being a false flag operation, saying that while
he acknowledges the full truth of the attacks has not been told, he does
not believe they were staged by elements of the US government.
Revered
on the left, Chomsky now seems to be keeping questionable company,
given that an army of liberal moon-bats, in particular those following
Hollywood actress Patricia Arquette, have recently suggested the very
same thing, that Trump could stage attacks.
Arquette, an ardent anti-Trump voice on social media, recently suggested that Trump could stage an attack to distract from the stories of Russian collusion.
The
response from her followers was to suggest that Trump may also
implement martial law and even start a nuclear war in an attempt to
distract his supporters from negative press.

Brexit: It’s Now Reality

It’s been nine months since Britain stunned the world by voting to leave the European Union.

After decades of
accepting the European Union’s burdensome regulations – one after
another – the British people finally said enough is enough.

Now, the EU’s
days of stifling the economic growth of Britain – and other countries
that joined the union but not the currency – are finally coming to an
end.

Last week,
Britain moved one step closer to taking back its sovereignty, and
escaping the burdensome regulations of the EU, when it was announced
that Prime Minister Theresa May plans to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon
Treaty on Wednesday, March 29.Article 50 is
the mechanism for quitting the European Union, thus launching a chess
match: Pitting the U.K.’s desire for a trade deal – while regaining
power over immigration and lawmaking – against the EU’s view that
Britain must not benefit from Brexit.

Britain is the
world’s sixth-largest economy, and it’s been more than 40 years since
the U.K. joined the European Union. So this separation won’t be a piece
of cake.

The constellation of the European Union is about to lose one of its biggest stars.In fact, the
U.K. will have to pay a bill of about $62 billion when it leaves the
European Union, warned Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the
European Commission, the EU’s executive branch. While Britain prepares
to start Brexit negotiations, the EU has already been tallying the
U.K.’s share of liabilities such as pensions for EU officials,
infrastructure projects, and the bailout of Ireland.

I don’t know about you, but $62 billion is a heck of a divorce settlement!

Once Article 50 is invoked, the two sides have two years to come to terms on a trade deal.

And a lot can happen in two years.

In fact, if the
negotiations collapse, May says she’ll walk away without a new
commercial framework in place rather than accept a bad deal. All this
makes the likelihood of a disruptive breakup “troublingly high.”

Brexit is just the beginning

The EU is already on borrowed time, same goes for the euro.

And the U.K.’s exit is just the beginning. There are still plenty more disruptions looming …

==> The
elections in France – along with right-winged political rhetoric gaining
strength in other countries across the eurozone – has the EU on life
support.

==> And don’t
forget about the debt problems: Once again, the Greek government is set
to run out of money. In a few months, it will need a fresh bailout from
the EU and the International Monetary Fund. After nine years of trying
to fix Greece, the situation has only gotten worse. Even if the Greeks
do end up with another bailout, it will only be another stay of
execution.

==> The EU
also has an identity crisis – and it’s not just the refugee crisis
causing the divide. There is also a political bias between the Northern
and Southern European countries. Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen
Dijsselbloem recently inflamed the hostilities by making insulting
remarks about Southern European culture. The remarks provoked former
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to demand Dijsselbloem’s resignation
as president of the Eurogroup, a coalition of eurozone finance
ministers.

Bottom Line: The
Brexit fiasco is finally coming home to roost. And that’s going to
continue to wreak havoc on the European Union. Mark my words: There will
be pitfalls ahead for investors who don’t know what they’re doing. Do
you?

RSIS
Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate,
policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical issues and
contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do
not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced
electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS and due
recognition to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email: RSISPublications@ntu.edu.sgfor feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentary, Yang Razali Kassim.

This
week, the UK government will finally start the process for Britain’s
withdrawal from the EU. The rest of the world is assessing how exposed
other countries are to the almost inevitable economic fallout that will
follow Brexit. How will ASEAN be affected, given the region’s
globally-connected export content?Commentary

AS
THE United Kingdom formally starts its exit from the European Union, a
clearer picture is emerging of how Brexit might unfold. The new Prime
Minister Theresa May has pushed her Brexit bill through parliament and
is poised to invoke Article 50 today, 29 March 2017. She also went some
way to resolving the often repeated question of whether the UK will
pursue a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit, by indicating that Britain will not be
looking to remain in the single market, with control over immigration
winning that particular battle.

The British economy has largely
done better than expected since last June’s referendum, with growth
accelerating at the end of last year and growing by 1.8% overall in
2016. The fall in the pound sterling has given a boost to exporters
while raising costs for the many products imported, pushing up inflation
quickly. Nonetheless most economic actors are considering their options
before they commit to the UK economy; they are either hesitant to
invest or are looking to potentially move their operations out of the
country. As the UK is a significant member of the world economy, all
eyes are on the fate of Britain, as well as the rest of Europe, while
assessing the potential impact of Brexit on other regions of the world.ASEAN’s exposure to the UK and Europe

ASEAN,
for one, is not immune to the Brexit fallout, given its economic
exposure to both the EU and the UK economies. The common method to
assess the degree of exposure is to measure the volume and flow of
exports going to the EU from ASEAN and the foreign direct investment
(FDI) heading in the opposite direction.

According to the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) and International Trade Centre (ITC Trademap),
Vietnam and Thailand were the largest exporters from ASEAN to the UK,
which amounted to USD4.8 billion and USD3.6 billion, respectively in
2014. Overall, however, the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and
East Asia (ERIA) estimated that the UK only accounted for 1.5 percent of
ASEAN exports in 2015.

ASEAN is significantly more exposed to
the EU as a whole, particularly via trade channels, compared to the UK.
The EU is ASEAN’s second largest trading partner, which accounted for
around 13 percent of ASEAN trade in 2014. The European Commission states
that the largest exporters to the EU in ASEAN were Vietnam, which
amounted to more than EUR33 billion, and Malaysia (EUR22.2 billion).
With regards to foreign direct investment going into ASEAN, 16.7% of FDI
comes from the EU totalling more than USD19 billion, with one third of
that coming from the UK.

Beyond Exports and FDI: The Global Value Chain

Analysing
exports and FDI alone, however, provides an inadequate picture of
ASEAN’s exposure to Brexit. While it is true that ASEAN is an
export-oriented region and will continue to be for the foreseeable
future, there is an increasing reliance on 'importing to export’ with
imports making up a portion of the final export product. Production has
become more fragmented in the age of globalisation, with products less
and less likely to be manufactured wholly in one country, by one firm
alone.

The result is that much more of global trade is not in
finished products but also in components and parts (intermediate goods).
The World Bank estimated that 20 per cent of global trade was in
intermediate goods in 2015. ASEAN is no exception to the growing level
of production networks that span multiple nations with high levels of
trade of unfinished products coming in and out of the region. The Global
Value Chain (GVC) participation rate was at 56 per cent for East and
Southeast Asia in 2010 according to the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD). This illustrates the degree of
fragmentation within the region.

In the case of ASEAN, 28.4
percent of its total exports’ value was produced from outside the region
in 2011 according to statistics collected by the OECD and the World
Trade Organisation (WTO), with the EU being a major contributor to the
region’s 'foreign value added’ content of exports. In fact, a total of
16.3 percent of foreign value added embodied in ASEAN exports originated
from the EU.

The share of EU value added within exports is
particularly high in Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia. Digging further
into the trade data of ASEAN member states highlights how crucial the
share of EU value added in ASEAN exports is to some key industries.
Malaysia's most important export industry – electronics - owes almost 10
percent of its total gross export value to the EU. Elsewhere, ASEAN’s
largest automobile exporter, Thailand, has the EU contributing 6.4
percent to the industry’s total exports, while 4.4 percent of Vietnam's
important textile export industry originates from the bloc.What Does this Mean for ASEAN?

There are two main takeaways from this analysis of ASEAN’s exposure to Brexit.

Firstly,
and as already widely known, ASEAN has most to worry from an economic
slump spreading from Britain and causing significant damage to the rest
of the EU. A slowdown in the EU would negatively affect the demand for
ASEAN’s exports much more than a consequent economic downturn limited to
only the UK.

The data also brings to light an aspect of
vulnerability that has not been seriously considered, which is the
potential disruption in the production networks that ASEAN export
industries rely on. The complex fragmented nature of global trade and
ASEAN’s movement up the value chain means assessing the region’s
exposure to external shocks is becoming an increasingly inter-connected
and comprehensive exercise.

It is therefore necessary to go
beyond the standard examination of gross exports and FDI when assessing
the potential fallout from Brexit on ASEAN, or Southeast Asia. It is
equally crucial to consider the importance of foreign value added
content when analysing ASEAN’s exposure to the impending impact of
Brexit.

Aédán
Mordecai and Phidel Vineles are Senior Analysts with the Centre for
Multilateralism Studies (CMS) at the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.Click HERE to read this commentary online.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

RSIS
Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate,
policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical issues and
contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do
not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced
electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS and due
recognition to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email: RSISPublications@ntu.edu.sgfor feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentary, Yang Razali Kassim.

The
recent low-tech attack by a lone wolf in London may well be a harbinger
of things to come in the struggle against ISIS extremism. Singapore
must be prepared at several levels to meet the challenge.Commentary

ON
WEDNESDAY 22 March 2017, Adrian Elms alias Khalid Masood, a 52-year
old British convert to Islam, drove his rented Hyundai 4x4 at high speed
onto the sidewalk of Westminster Bridge in London, mowing down
terrified pedestrians, killing three of them in the process. A fourth
victim later died in hospital. Masood crashed his vehicle into the
perimeter fence surrounding Westminster Palace, emerged with two large
knives and entered the British Parliament grounds where he stabbed a
police officer to death before being shot dead himself by other on-site
security personnel.

The self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and
Sham (ISIS) through its Amaq news agency eventually claimed
responsibility for the attack, calling Masood a “soldier of the
Caliphate” and claiming that he had “carried out the operation in
response to calls to target citizens of the coalition”. The early
consensus appears that Masood had carried out the attack on behalf of
ISIS, having been inspired – but not explicitly instructed - to do so by
immersion in ISIS propaganda. Masood in short is very likely another
example of the so-called “lone wolf” terrorist inspired but not
necessarily directed by an organised terrorist network whose cause he
had become ideologically committed to.A Disturbing Recent Trend

In
particular, the mode of Masood’s action – a vehicle-ramming attack,
sometimes accompanied by an on-foot gun and/or knife assault – appears
to be in the process of becoming an ISIS trademark. On 14 July 2016, for
example, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhel, a Tunisian who was resident in
France, drove a 19-tonne cargo truck into crowds celebrating Bastille
Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, killing 86 people and maiming
484 others, before being shot dead in an exchange of gunfire with
police.

As in the latest London incident, ISIS claimed
responsibility for the Nice attack, saying that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had
answered its "calls to target citizens of coalition nations that fight
the Islamic State". Then on 19 December 2016, Anis Amri, a failed
Tunisian asylum seeker, drove a truck into a Christmas market next to
the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church at Breitscheidplatz in Berlin,
killing 12 and injuring 56 people.

Amri had commandeered the
truck after killing its driver but was shot dead by Italian police near
Milan four days later. Yet again ISIS claimed responsibility for the
attack, saying the attacker had answered its calls to target the
citizens of states that are fighting against it. That this
vehicle-ramming-plus-knife assault tactic may well be coming into
current ISIS vogue was further suggested by an incident occurring just
hours after the London incident.

A 40-year old French national
called Mohamed R. was arrested by police in the northern Belgian city of
Antwerp for trying to enter the main pedestrianised shopping street at
high speed. The police also found a rifle and bladed weapons in his car.

Cars, Trucks, Knives and ISIS: Nothing Very New

Some
observers argue that the latest apparent shift in ISIS tactics is borne
out of necessity. As the United States and Russian-led coalition
continues to put the squeeze militarily on ISIS positions in Iraq and
Syria, the ISIS leadership may be expected to take the strategic
decision to begin preparations for a shift from a territorially-based
entity to a global insurgency.

That is, instead of being
physically concentrated around Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq, the
ISIS meme will be kept alive in the form of what FBI Director James
Comey has called a “terrorist diaspora” - where thousands of foreign
fighters will ultimately fan outwards from the Middle East, heading back
towards Europe, Africa, as well as East Asia and even Southeast Asia.

One operational consequence of this strategic shift would be
that complex, multiple-assault type actions like the devastating attacks
on Paris on 13 November 2015 which were basically coordinated from ISIS
Central, will become less likely. While returning foreign fighters may
tap local black markets to secure the weapons needed for fairly
sophisticated attacks, tightened security measures in the wake of Paris
and Brussels may make that option less appealing.

Hence
relatively low-tech measures – like what we witnessed in London – may
make more tactical sense. Worse, one need not even be a trained fighter
to perpetrate such low-tech attacks – merely a fanatical lone wolf-type
commitment to the ISIS creed would do. This is why the Soufan Group has
warned of the “weaponisation of everyday life” - as exemplified by the
use of cars, trucks and knives for terrorist purposes – as a dangerous
emerging trend.Genesis of the Lone-Wolf Idea

Reinforcing
such an operational trend is the fact that ISIS and its Al Qaeda
cousins have long prepared themselves doctrinally for such a shift
towards decentralized action by a mix of trained local cells and lone
wolves. In the mid-2000s the Syrian Al Qaedaist ideologue Abu Musab
Al-Suri had famously argued against centralised direction from the core
Al Qaeda leadership, favouring instead action by independent small cells
acting on their own initiative to exploit local opportunities to strike
at enemies.

Furthermore, capitalising on the rise of social media platforms in the mid-2000s, organs such as the online English magazine Inspire,
the brainchild of the late “bin Laden of the Internet,” Anwar
Al-Awlaki, the chief ideologue for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
(AQAP) in Yemen, promoted lone wolf action, calling on supporters to "do
your own terrorism and stay in place".

In 2010, moreover, Inspire
urged followers to choose "’pedestrian only’ locations and make sure to
gain speed before ramming their vehicles into the crowd in order to
‘achieve maximum carnage’". Hence, when the late ISIS spokesperson Abu
Muhammad al-Adnani called on ISIS supporters worldwide in September 2014
to “single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their
allies”, and amongst other things, “slaughter him with a knife, or run
him over with your car,” he was really stating nothing new.

What
we witnessed in London last week was always going to be part of the
ISIS terror toolkit. We are likely however to see more of such low-tech
attacks.

SG Secure: Now, More Than Ever

Even
the most casual observer will recognise that the densely populated
urban city-state of Singapore is not immune to the type of low-tech
attack London just experienced. While physical measures like concrete
barriers and bollards are certainly part of the defence against such
threats, they are insufficient. This is where the recently launched SG
Secure national movement with its emphasis on promoting community
cohesion, vigilance and resilience is timely.

At one level, the
wider community must be prepared to know what to do in an emergency,
and act as the security forces’ extra eyes and ears to detect suspicious
activity suggesting terrorist incidents are about to occur. At a second
level, being aware of telltale signs of radicalisation into violent
extremism on the part of family members, friends and colleagues, is
equally important to enable early intervention to prevent a vulnerable
individual from acting out any lone wolf terrorist fantasies.

At
a third and final level, security forces, no matter how well trained,
cannot be everywhere at once. Hence perhaps the call in some quarters
for suitable and willing able-bodied members of the public to volunteer
for training in self-defence techniques may be worth further
exploration. After all, there have been low-tech terrorist incidents
overseas where alert and courageous members of the public collectively
disarmed lightly armed individual attackers before help arrived.

If
Singaporeans can demonstrably live up to the moniker of “Lion City”, a
layer of psychological deterrence may well be added to the SG Secure
mix, further enhancing our nation’s security in the face of the emerging
low-tech “weaponisation of everyday life”.

Kumar
Ramakrishna is Associate Professor, Head of Policy Studies and
Coordinator of the National Security Studies Programme in the Office of
the Executive Deputy Chairman, S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Click HERE to read this commentary online.

He
didn’t put it that way, but it was part of his point. Justice Carpio
asked the President to take care in speaking on territorial issues, to
avoid explicitly or implicitly relinquishing sovereign claims and
rights.

As
head of state, President Duterte speaks for the Republic. Hence, if he
says, for instance, that the Philippines can do nothing about
construction and other actions by China on Scarborough or Panatag Shoal,
it could be construed as giving up our claim.

And
if the Duterte government actually does nothing, not even protesting
Beijing’s building plan or work, it may further buttress the claim that
we’re not interested in asserting territorial rights.

Plus:
The President may be shirking his constitutional duty to defend the
national territory and patrimony — an impeachable offense.

Another expert in international maritime law, however, begs to differ with His Honor the Senior Associate Justice.

Legal
luminary Estelito Mendoza was Philippine representative in global
negotiations decades ago forging the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the legal regime for maritime sovereign rights,
freedom of navigation, and other provisions governing the high seas.

The
Marcos-era justice secretary and solicitor general also advised in
crafting the 2008 Baselines Law and claiming the 130,000-sq km Benham
Rise undersea plateau, which the UNCLOS declared part of our extended
continental shelf, with no nation objecting.

The
ECS confers exclusive rights to harness resources in the seabed, like
offshore oil, while the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) covers use of the
waters, like fishing.

Mendoza
believes President Duterte has not said or done anything weakening
territorial and maritime claims, even in declaring: “We cannot stop
China from doing its thing [on Panatag]. Even the Americans were not
able to stop them.”

Or
when he disclosed that he allowed China to do marine research at Benham
Rise, amid concern over a Chinese vessel staying there for three months
last year. (Notably, Justice Carpio also said research on the waters is
fine, but not on the seabed.)

So,
which legal opinion is correct? We won’t know for sure until President
Duterte’s actions and statements are cited by a rival claimant in some
international tribunal on conflicting territorial claims. But it’s wise
to be careful, as Justice Carpio urged.

Asserting sovereign rights
He also suggested five ways for President Duterte to fulfill his
constitutional duty of asserting territorial claims, even without force.
One is to avoid statements and actions undermining sovereign claims and
rights. The government can also strongly protest violations — “the
least the Philippines can do,” said Carpio. And Duterte can send vessels
to patrol our claimed areas.

Third,
the government can ask Washington to declare Panatag Shoal as part of
territory covered by the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty, Carpio
argued, since it was part of the country when we were under American
rule. And he urged accepting the US standing offer of joint naval
patrols in disputed areas, which President Duterte stopped.

The
Palace has not been utterly silent on territorial issues. Last week,
Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella raised concerns over the
Chinese vessel in Benham Rise. He also asked Beijing to clarify reports
that it plans to build a environmental monitoring station on Panatag
Shoal.

Yesterday,
China’s Foreign Ministry denied it just when the Justice and Foreign
Affairs Departments said they would file a strong protest.

On
Carpio’s proposals, one hopes the President would mind his tongue on
maritime matters, despite his refusal to be silenced on other issues.

Despite
his amicable policy toward China, downplaying disputes, there should be
room for protests even between friends. But sea patrols, especially
with the US, seem unlikely for now. The Navy will secure Benham Rise,
which isn’t disputed territory.

Regarding
the defense treaty, President Duterte reiterated during his Myanmar
visit his aversion to military activities with the US, which may provoke
China, even though he saw much improved ties with President Donald
Trump’s administration.

Time to get a real stick
So, is that all we can do about territorial encroachments — speak softly, since we don’t have a big stick?

In fact, there are defensive capabilities we should develop, but never did, due to our excessive dependence on the US alliance.

In
April 2012, when the past regime lost Panatag Shoal, the Washington
security think-tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
(CSBA) urged: “The United States needs to help the Philippines develop
its own set of ‘anti-access/area denial’ capabilities to counter China’s
growing power projection capabilities.”

Former
National Security Adviser RoiloGolez has long advocated acquiring 200
BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missiles made in India with Russian know
how. The truck-mounted hard-to-find rockets, with their 300-to-400-km
range, can protect our entire EEZ and most of our ECS.

Since
the BrahMos would secure offshore oil deposits, their deployment could
be an energy-related undertaking funded with Malampaya gas royalties,
now well over P150 billion. Vietnam is buying the BrahMos, along with
that other key A2/AD weapon: submarines. (President Duterte should
mention both when he visits Moscow.)

Why
didn’t Washington follow CSBA advice and provide A2/AD gear, as Tokyo
is doing with two surveillance planes recently turned over? Just a wild
guess, but maybe it’s because if we could defend ourselves, we wouldn’t
let American forces escalate deployment and use bases in our country.

What
if we’re attacked or invaded for sinking intruding ships? Then the US
alliance kicks in. And despite Duterte’s cussing, America will fight to
keep the Philippines from falling into enemy hands and becoming a vast
hostile military platform dominating Asia.

So,
Mr. President, you’re right for us to bide our time until we’re strong
enough to defend what’s ours. Now, let’s get those A2/AD armaments
pronto.

So what if the Filipino elites don't care about our fishermen? They are just about one percent of the population.

The
remaining 99% among us, whether we care or not, we are adversely
affected by the Chinese prohibition of fishing by Filipino fishermen in
the disputed areas within our EEZ. Prices of fish rose in the local
market owing to reduce fish supply from the Chinese ban on Filipino
fishermen, in our own EEZ recognized by the international community. Big
ayungin fish is liked by many among us who are familiar with it, but it
is now gone in the local market since China prohibited fishing by our
fishermen in Ayungin shoal.

What
you believe or not is irrelevant because nations--let alone
China--don't listen to you. The Philippines has to anticipate and react
to what China and other nations actually think and intend to do, not by
what you believe.

Both
China and the Philippines agreed to leave Panatag shoal during PNoy's
time. The Philippines dutifully left but China did not! Is this the kind
of country we should trust to honor any agreements we may enter into
with it?

If
we claimed the Spratlys and took possession of it, we were the first
to do so. Had we not done that, China would have eventually done it and
claimed as EEZ the surrounding sea, overlapping our own EEZ, resulting
in unavoidable differences and much bigger problem for the Philippines.
Is that what you want?

So,
you are in favor of China staying permanently in the Philippine EEZ
area and preventing Filipino fishermen from fishing there?

(When
China prevented Filipino fishermen from fishing in the Ayungin shoal,
the supply of ayungin fish (lukaok in Tagalog) stopped in a local market
I know.)

MLT

--

Sent from my iPad

How about a show of
Filipino honesty and integrity?

Filipino elite positions on
the SCS are characterized by parochialism and proprietarism. “That rock is
mine. God gave that rock to me.”

Common Filipino people
avail of nature’s gifts by employing their labor and meager capital to draw
fish and other goods from the sea. Filipino social elites in 1956 and 1978 declared
the Spratlys as their property and part of Philippine territory. Filipino masses
look at the sea as a means of livelihood, while Filipino elites look at the sea
as something to own and collect rent from those living off the sea.

There is the ever
persistent Filipino elite pretense that the massive Orca in the room, the USA,
is not involved in the SCS dispute. Yet the pretense is accompanied by the
contradictory feeling that the US is bound to defend Philippine rocks in the
SCS, despite consistent denials by American officials.

The bigger picture is much
less parochial but much more proprietary. The truth is the US is deeply
involved in the SCS dispute because imperial America sincerely believes it owns
the world – from sea to shining sea. To prove how serious US proprietary claims
of the Asian world are, the US constructed and maintains 400 military bases in
the Asia Pacific region. Every year, the US/South Korea crime partners conduct
war games for 2 months involving close to half a million soldiers with
provocative objectives like (North Korea) regime decapitation, blockade of Malacca
Straits threatening Asian freedom of navigation and trade, and use of
nuclear-armed B2 stealth bombers threatening human existence itself.

In defense of its own
existence, China reclaims a few rocks in the SCS and builds airfields, radar
facilities, missile sites, submarine bases, and other military installations to
counter the US Godzilla. The US throws a tantrum at China’s audacity like
delinquent Democrats who refuse to accept defeat in the 2016 presidential
elections. The new US Secretary of State even threatens to stop further
construction and prevent China’s use of completed facilities in its own front
yard – the South China Sea. What better proof of imperial US ownership claims
of the world than these?

Once invested in a lie, the
US must remain consistent by repeating the lie about the PCA piece of toilet
paper. The PCA is not the legal venue to settle territorial disputes over land,
sea, and air. The UN and ICJ are the legal adjudicators of international law,
not the PCA. Both the UN and ICJ categorically stated the PCA is not part of
the UN/ICJ, and both had nothing to do with the PCA ruling over the Philippine
case about the SCS. The PCA ruling is not international law because the PCA has
no authority to issue binding legal judgments. Only the UN/ICJ has legal
international authority to do so.

The PCA is a mere
administrative and secretarial service provider to parties in an arbitration
case. It provided only rental space and secretarial services to the Philippine
panel, its American and British lawyers, and hired judges hearing Philippine
arguments. The whole charade was initiated, organized, led, and managed by the
US State Department and CIA. In particular, CSIS and AMTI whose governing board
includes Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and ex-generals and admirals of
the US empire. The PCA venue was chosen by the Americans who were not after a
binding international law judgment but an impressive propaganda club to beat
China’s head with. And all expenses paid for by America’s doormat in Asia – the
Philippines led by Noynoy Aquino and Antonio Carpio.

So the Philippines is back
in square one. China occupies Mischief Reef and Scarborough Shoal inside
Philippine EEZ but well out there in international waters. A limbo case of
being inside but outside. The Philippines must be honest with itself and the
world that it occupies some rocks in the Spratlys that are beyond its EEZ and
in international waters. China and other Asian countries also claim those rocks
as theirs.

The Philippines can reduce
SCS tension by ceasing to behave as US doormat and deny Philippine territory to
US military forces. It should declare its commitment for a regional agreement
to recognize the Spratlys as international waters. Also pursue a regional
agreement to demilitarize the Asia Pacific as a nuclear weapons-free zone and
dismantle all foreign military bases in the area. Immediately begin serious
bilateral negotiations with China over EEZ matters, Spratlys occupation, AIIB/New
Silk Road Development participation, SCO membership, regional defense
cooperation, and other social/political acts of genuine independence. No more
American Macabebe Scout policies.

Allan T.

Sent: Friday, 24 March 2017, 20:29Subject: [Worldwide-Filipino-Alliance] HOW DO WE WRIGGLE OUT FROM OUR NATIONAL SHAME? Re: Puzzling show of defeatism

The international rule that the areas
occupied by Chinese military facilities in the West Philippine Sea is mere
Philippine EEZ but not our national territory does not justify at all the
permanent Chinese military facilities built there. If it is not our territory,
neither is it China's territory. Therefore, China, or any other country for
that matter, has no right to build such military facilities in the area because that act
constitutes act of OWNERSHIP applicable to owned territories alone, not to
international waters or sea lane, especially if it is part of EEZ of another
country, like the Philippines in this case.
Further, China's ownership claim over the vast south China sea,
including the disputed area, has not been accepted by the community of
nations.

As further proof of OWNERSHIP,
the Chinese military do not allow Filipino fishermen to even go near the
military facilities, thereby preventing us from exercising and enjoying our EEZ
rights over the area. Definitely, these acts of China are valid object of
protest in the UN. What is our UN membership for if we will not even seek its
aid to save us from international embarrassment as a helpless nation against
the bully China? In fact, what China did is not just bullying or empty threat--it is actual
grabbing and permanent possession and occupation of part of our EEZ.

The
happening of this
national shame probably did not occur to the Magnificent 12 who kicked
out the
US military bases in 1991. They were complacent and did not think that
other
military power will fill in the void left by the US military when the
opportune time comes. They underestimated the ability of other nations
to do the unexpected once the irresistibly tempting opportunity
arises. They did not lift a finger during their time to anticipate
this contingency which turned today into reality. They were legal
experts but
not visionary who prepares for potential future problems. Worse, they
would not lead
the nation now in taking the initiative toward saving us from our
present
national disgrace rooted from their act.

The
difference between the US and China: The US left when told to leave.
China does not budge an inch even if we complained against them.

How do we wriggle out from our present national shame? Why not ask the surviving members of the Magnificent 12?

Mar Tecson

At
one point, not only the Chinese thought that they can impose their will
on everyone by sheer military might over little defenseless enemies.
The Germans did so in the early 20th Century, when they looked
invincible. The Japanese did so as well in the 1930s and had a plan, as
again did the Germans at the same time, thinking the Axis was simply
unbeatable.

Well
we know what happened to those two international bullies, don't we?
Geopolitical rivalries run through decades as Otto Von Bismarck knew
instinctively, and this play is far from over. Anyone who thinks the
UNCLOS decision is worth ZERO is either Chinese or a traitor, and we all
know that.

This
dispute is in the second inning, using a sports metaphor, and already,
the Philippines had scored a home run. That is the basis of a spirited
defense that will unfold. Scarborough Shoal is the third inning, and
already plans are being developed at the Pentagon and Rand Corporation,
among many others. The World Series, was never EVER won in the second or
third inning. This game has a long way to go.

We
know that bullies without real military muscle are hot air until the
stronger country rises up finally. Krushev found that out, as did
Gorbachev. We all know how those plays ended.

Ricky

On Thursday, March 23, 2017, 8:24:24 PM EDT, Eduardo Gimenez

There
is another and far more important element to the dispute. That element
is “capability”. The disputed areas are in small unpopulated islets
spread out over thousands of square miles of ocean surrounding us. Most
of those islets go in and out of existence depending on the sea level
and the presence of storms. Unless Filipinos have learned to walk on
water, they do not have the capability of defending that territory. I
disagree that Filipinos are “cowering in fear”. This description is
completely inaccurate. Much more accurate is the fact the nation has
gone as far as it could go by taking the case before a toothless arm of
the UN and won its legal case.

But
having won and does not mean the ability to impose on China the fact we
won the case. Because China did not participate in the case so it
believes correctly that IT HAS NOT LOST. We went to UNCLOS alone
without any opponent. Given the lack of an opponent, that we would win
was a foregone conclusion. But China has one of the world’s largest
navy and it has created bases for them in those shoals and is continuing
to create more bases. They are creating GROUNDS ON THE SEAS as well as
FACTS ON THOSE GROUNDS that belie the Philippine claim… and that the
Philippines can do nothing about.

Every
sensible analyst who looked at the Philippine vs China position when
the dispute started in the early 2000s could have foreseen this present
state of affairs and would have gone the route of negotiation instead of
confrontation. I was one of those. Had we done that, there would be a
thousand offshore drilling rigs pumping oil out and generating some
negotiated income that would have substantially changed the Philippine
economic condition today. Instead we descended into one of the worst
aspects of our Spanish colonial masters namely “Quixotismo” derived from
that great Spanish classic Don Quijote de la Mancha. Quixotismo is a
false sense of pride. “IF I CAN’T HAVE ALL OF IT, YOU CAN HAVE NONE OF
IT”. The silliness of this position is our complete lack of capability
to impose our part… “YOU CAN HAVE NONE OF IT”.

The
patient Chinese knowing the quixotismo ingrained in the Filipino
nature, played us to the hilt. We bit on every lure they threw our
way. So we won our case. But what do we have to show for it?
NOTHING!

The
Chinese will end up owning it all. Our having won at UNCLOS is
irrelevant after all because we cannot impose our win nor can we get
anyone to help us against China. Every day that passes makes that win a
more vague and distant memory to the rest of the world.

Danding

Subject: Re: [Worldwide-Filipino-Alliance] Puzzling show of defeatism

Ricky,
the Vietnamese are a different breed altogether from us Filipinos. They
have seen victories against the mightiest armies the world has thrown
at them - the Mongols, with Chinese conscripts, under Kublai Khan; the
French legionnaires at Dienbienphu in 1955; and the Americans in 1975.
We Filipinos, on the other hand, have only experienced defeat - at the
hands of the Spaniards, the Americans and the Japanese. The
Vietnamese are standing their ground back against the Chinese bullies
while we Filipinos are cowering in fear, surrendering without firing a
single shot. It is no wonder that the Vietnamese have even overtaken us
economically; next to overtake us will be the country that Duterte just
visited and handed aid to the tune of $300,000, Myanmar. That country is
growing at the annual rate of 10%; if it continues to do so, it will
overtake the Philippines in 15 years or less. The first time we were
bypassed by our neighbors was during the Marcos regime, the second time
will be under Duterte.

Subject: Re: [Worldwide-Filipino-Alliance] Puzzling show of defeatism

Joe,
the latest - "The Chinese have a right to hang out at Benham
Rise".......Duterte, so now we are encircled between the West Philippine
Sea, and the Philippine Sea in a pincer maneuver by the Chinese. He
says the Philippine soldiers will be slaughtered. Well tell that to
Vietnamese who stood their ground even though they were so
outarnumbered, out armed, outtechnologied, and out everythinged by the
Chinese in the SCS, but they fought back to defend their country from
Chinese bullying and thieving.

Ricky!

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017, 12:55:51 AM EDT, Jose Tabbada

There
must be a million reasons for Duterte's defeatism. This is the same
candidate who boasted during the campaign that he would jetski to one of
the contested islets and plant the Philippine flag and die a hero if
need be. Maybe Duterte meant the Chinese flag. Everything that he has
done since assuming the presidency has been to hand over Philippine
territory to China and behave like a vassal to his Chinese overlords.

Glance
at a map and see if you aren’t startled at how close Panatag Shoal is
to the Philippines—and why there is a so-called dispute about its
ownership in the first place. The triangle-shaped outcropping of rocks
and reefs, also known as Bajo de Masinloc or Scarborough Shoal to
generations of Filipino fishermen, is merely 220 kilometers (124
nautical miles) from Palauig, Zambales—the nearest landmass to it. That
distance is about the same as from Manila to Daet, Camarines Norte. By
contrast, the nearest Chinese port, in Hainan Island, is a whopping 550
nautical miles away.

The
3-century-old map Carta Hydrographica y Chorographica de las Yslas
Filipinas—drawn by the Jesuit priest Pedro Murillo Velarde, published in
1734 and obtained by Filipino businessman Mel Velarde from a Sotheby’s
auction in London—definitively shows Panatag Shoal as part of Philippine
territory. The map formed part of the supporting documents the
Philippines submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague
that heard the country’s protest against China’s claim on the
territory. The tribunal decided in favor of the Philippines last year,
saying that China’s supposed historic claim on almost the entire South
China Sea by virtue of a “nine-dash line,” which would include ownership
of Panatag, the Spratly Islands and other coral reefs and atolls in the
region, is without legal basis.

Unfortunately,
despite the ruling China has continued to exercise effective control
over Panatag since at least 2012. Previous to that, the Philippines
exercised occupation and jurisdiction over the area, even putting up a
lighthouse there in 1965. But China wrested it from Philippine hands
basically by trickery, when it broke an agreement to jointly withdraw
from the area until the ownership row is settled.

The
Philippines complied but China stayed, erected a barrier to the shoal,
began policing the area, and, in 2015, even used water cannons on
Filipino fishermen attempting to fish in what had been their traditional
fishing grounds. The fishermen were able to return only in October last
year, after President Duterte went on a state visit to

China
and, in effect, got that country’s permission for his countrymen to
fish in the area. Suddenly, the Chinese Coast Guard wasn’t intercepting
Filipino boats anymore; it had clearly gotten the memo.

Now
comes the disturbing news that China is building radar facilities on
Panatag. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio says such a
station would further militarize the area: It would enable China to
impose missile-supported air control over the South China Sea, and to
eventually require any aircraft to seek permission from it to fly over
the area. The fact is that China has already built military
installations on other disputed atolls such as Mischief Reef, Subi Reef
and Fiery Cross Reef. The grand plan, it appears, is to impose the
discredited “nine-dash line” by sheer muscle.

Dishearteningly,
President Duterte’s response to this latest provocation has been a
puzzling display of defeatism: “Wala tayong magagawa dyan (There’s
nothing we can do),” he said. “What do you want me to do? Declare war
against China?”

Let’s
make it clear: No one is advocating a war to solve this row. But, for a
start, how about mobilizing the consensus of Asean, a number of whose
members are also disputing China’s claims in the region? The Philippines
holds the Asean chairmanship this year; can’t this administration put
this urgent matter on the table? How about mobilizing the tools and
opportunities of international diplomacy to pressure China to ease up on
its expansionism?

How
about, as Carpio says, desisting from issuing any suggestion that the
Philippines is yielding its claim on parts of the South China Sea? How
about exploring every other peaceful but determined option available to a
sovereign nation whose territory is being gobbled up, and not behaving
as though one couldn’t care less, or worse, as though one were a loser?

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com